Thursday, 15 March 2007

Since our very young blog started just two days ago, I've received some questions--some pointed, some more general--about things regarding the Fortress Ameritrash blog, my participation with it, the Ameritrash "movement", and other various things.

It occurred to me that we did just sort of jump in with guns blazing...after all, isn't that the Ameritrash way? We just took our ten-stack of content and piled it right in the opposing territory, as we are so wont to do.

Anyway, I thought that maybe I could deal with some of these questions in such a way that might answer some lingering questions and provide an informal introduction to the blog that we really didn't do in the first place.

Some of these questions are directly addressed at me, and others are more general. For the general questions, I will only answer for myself, and allow others to chime in underneath the comments section. So...let's get hoppin'!

--Did you guys start this blog as a direct reaction to Michael Barnes getting banned?

While the timing is incredibly convenient, trust me...this blog has been a long time coming. I was personally contacted by Matt back in January about finding some place other than BGG to put Ameritrash content. He also had contacted a select few others, and from there we started an email back and forth about the best way to actually DO this thing. We bandied about ideas such as doing a regular compilation column on BGG (sort of like the roundtable review posts you used to see there), we talked about creating our own website from the ground up, but eventually, we came to the conclusion that the blog was the best idea.

From there, Matt got the wheels spinning, setting up this blog, sending us instructions for getting signed up and logged in, and it went from there.

So while Michael's ban did come at a fortuitous time to draw attention to a new blog, this idea was in the works far before "The Banning of Michael Barnes".

--But why create a blog at all? Why not keep this content on BGG?

The short answer? We were essentially asked not to.

The longer answer is more complicated than that. When I first joined BGG back in June of 2005, I was a wide-eyed newbie who found the site solely from trying to hunt down a copy of Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit just as copies of the game were completely drying up within the channel.

I was amazed at what I found when I got there. Not sure if I wanted to stay, I created an account using a different name (that's why my user name on BGG makes no sense to anyone else--I wasn't planning on staying!). However, one thing led to another, and soon I'm doing reviews, session reports, commentary, ratings...once I realized that gee, I'd like to change my user name to something else--it was too late.

But I digress.

It didn't take long for me to get hit full in the face with the anti-American-style game bias that exists on that website. I saw games I liked dismissed out of hand. Games with dice in them were mercilessly slagged. I saw gamers who came to the site due to their love of games like Axis and Allies essentially told they were misinformed gamers with bad taste.

So...I created a little Geeklist called "What Sort of Gamer am I? OR The Ameriplasty Connection" (available to read here). Understand, I was not part of any "movement" at the time...after all, Robert Martin's excellent Ameritrash list was still almost a year away, and his caught fire in a way that mine did not. I wrote that list because honestly, I felt alone in my love for these games, and I was attempting to reach out and find other gamers like me, and to try to cut through that huge fog of bias.

I was naturally pleasantly surprised when the list generated a nice, healthy selection of thumbs and lots of thoughtful responses. Sure, there were a few people who popped in there to heap their scorn on American-style games, but for the most part the discussion was very civil.

Fast forward to Robert Martin's list, and the explosion of discussion that followed that one. I won't rehash that too deeply, but his great list ignited a fire of discussion and passion for these sorts of games that the Geek had never seen. People hurriedly offered their excitement and support about such games getting a spotlight, as if to validate them--"Hey! I like these games too!" Geekbadges were made and purchased (I even bought one, and I'm not a "spend your GG frivilously" kind of guy).

Something more nasty happened this time, though. Instead of the round support from the rest of the community, after only about the third list on the subject, a growing refrain of users were saying, "SHUT UP about these games!" or "Yawn! Another Ameritrash list!". Eventually, the climate for such discussion got so nasty that it was hard to carry it on productively.

(I mean--how hard is it, exactly? I don't like the game The Traders of Genoa and I'm not a big fan of most of the drier Euros in general. So, logically, I don't hang out in the ToG forums blasting people who do, and I don't make it a point to comment negatively under ToG whenever I see it listed on a Geeklist. It's not like Ameritrash game lists weren't prominently titled as such; how hard is it to just...I don't know...look at something else that interests you?)

The voices were chiming in to the effect that "Hey! Take this stuff somewhere else! We don't like these games! We don't like the division this is causing!"

So...we did.

--Is this blog for Ameritrashers only? What, exactly is the point of this blog?Great question! No, it's not for Ameritrashers only, though that will be the overwhelming focus of the lion's share of the blog entries. We have a site for discussing Euros ad naseum; it's called BoardGameGeek, there's no need for us to try to compete with or try to rehash content from there.

But even the comment "Ameritrashers only"--that's a common misconception. Ameritrash is a style of game. It is a rare bird indeed who would claim to only like one style of game, and for those who would, they are really depriving themselves.

I like this style of game, but one needs only look at my ratings and comments on BGG to see that I am not a "head in the sand Ameritrasher". 3 of the 4 games I give 10 ratings to are EUROS! (The other, War of the Ring, is often cited as being a wargame that has married nicely some very Euro sensibilities into the whole thing). If you look at my 8, 9, and 10 ratings, you'll find wargames, Euros, card games, CCGs, Ameritrash, you name it. I am a gamer first and foremost, never forget that. All of us here are.

The point of this blog is to champion this genre of game without stepping on any toes somewhere else. We already have tons of missives on BGG as to why people love Puerto Rico or Caylus. What has been missing are games of the Ameritrash persuasion getting "equal time" as it were, for us to be able to succinctly state why they are worthy of attention, and to explain to other gamers why we like them, why we choose to play Twilight Imperium over something like The Princes of Florence. You don't have to agree, but at least you can sympathize or understand with our position better if we explain it to the best of our abilities. And that's my goal.

--Are you guys going to continue to post on BGG?I can't speak for anyone else in this regard. Michael Barnes, obviously, is not going to be...he can't. Robert has indicated he is reluctant to post there again, but that might just be initial anger talking.

I will continue to post there, though I am extremely disappointed in the decision to ban Michael. I've been an admin on a few other CCG and/or gaming forums, and yeah, I've banned users before. But it took far, far more egregious sins than those committed by Mr. Barnes to get that sort of punishment, and only then if it was obvious they had nothing meaningful to add to the conversation. Say what you want about Michael, but he indeed has something to say, even if he often wraps it in the flag of sarcasm. He knows his games, being a long-time gamer, a former FLGS owner and now an online retailer. He's not a blind muckraker, just someone who has an opinion that isn't necessarily stated in the nice, neat packaged soundbites we often get as the "norm" on BGG.

To date, I've done 15 reviews, 33 Session Reports, created 14 Geeklists, and generated 640 "thumbs up" and nabbed 65 Geekbuddies in the process. For me to quit there would be counterproductive, and wasteful of the effort I've put in to the BGG community. It is a community that I value, though it has really let me down over the past few days...

(You guys on the threads singing and celebrating Micheal's banning? While personally attacking his corpse? The hypocricy is STAGGERING. Especially those of you who typicall babble on about personal freedom and the ability to freely express ideas...also, it's worth noting that there are plenty of Euro or abstract-centric game fans who are similarly hateful and dismissive to other users they don't happen to agree with and nothing is ever done about them.)

--I liked the Siege of the Citadel piece. Do you plan on posting it on BGG?Well, that would be *really* counterproductive, wouldn't it? *GRIN*

My aim is to provide valuable content for this site. I want people to be excited about discussing these types of games. I want there to be open conversation about them without a few grumpy "Old Skoolers" shouting down everyone with their eye-rolling and finger-drumming. I don't half-ass anything (it's the reason I've only written 15 reviews as opposed to more of them.) I want the material I'm providing to be worth reading, and to increase the value of this blog as a whole.

If I go and post the same material on BGG--and that bit about Siege could've easily qualified as a review and possibly netted me a couple of GeekGold in the process--then what point would there be for anyone ever checking this site out?

Believe me, I'll still be doing reviews, ratings, geeklists, and other commentary on BGG. But likewise, I'm going to try to give you guys some quality material and a reason to come here and check out what the guys have to say--Barnes, Martin, Matt, Brady, Frank, EVERYBODY.

So...there you have it, I hope that this information answers a few questions as well as provides a little context and introduction to the Fortress: Ameritrash blog. Thanks for all the great comments and feedback thus far, these are always welcome!

52 comments:

Why Blogger? Why not your own website instead of this crappy place? You want a voice and legitimacy, but this (using blogger) is kinda lame. You ATers should all chip in a couple bucks (you can get full hosting for less than $30/yr)...

I am only visiting because of the posts at BGG, I will probably check back to see if you reply to this, but in time this will fade from memory... get your own domain with some creative stuff and I might check it out.

"Something more nasty happened this time, though. Instead of the round support from the rest of the community, *after only about the third list on the subject* (emphasis added), a growing refrain of users were saying, "SHUT UP about these games!" or "Yawn! Another Ameritrash list!". Eventually, the climate for such discussion got so nasty that it was hard to carry it on productively."

I realize there were people like generalpf who were of the "We don't like your kind around here" mindset. But I always felt like the majority of the comments, such as the "Yawn..." one above, were more along the lines of "Don't you have anything *new* to say?"

There's already been more content on this blog then I remember in all of the Ameritrash discussion combined. That doesn't mean it wasn't there, it just means I never could find it through the noise. I'd have bought the AT badge ages ago if I thought it represented more than "Look at me! LOOK AT MEEEEE!!!"

I think part of that is the way Geeklists have morphed from "Here's a collection of great strategy articles on games following a common theme" into "Here are games that rhyme with 'duck'". But whatever, water under the bridge, to continue the duck metaphor.

Thanks for clearing up this idea that this is "my" blog- Matt Thrower was the mastermind behind all this, I think my ban just served as a good turning point to stop chattering about doing something and actually do it. I definitely hope that our readership will come to appreciate and value this blog (or whatever form it might grown into) as a collaborative effort from folks who don't always agree with each other but have a common idea of what great games are. We're already talking about next steps and where we can take this and I'm really looking forward to some great articles from these guys as well as comments from everybody else.

As for posting to BGG...it's not necessarily that I "can't"- it's that I _won't_.

Something more nasty happened this time, though. Instead of the round support from the rest of the community, *after only about the third list on the subject* (emphasis added), a growing refrain of users were saying, "SHUT UP about these games!" or "Yawn! Another Ameritrash list!". Eventually, the climate for such discussion got so nasty that it was hard to carry it on productively.

Let's not pretend that this didn't go both ways. Many AT-fans couldn't talk about any game without putting down Caylus, Puerto Rico or Euros in general. It really seems that several in the fledgling AT community on BGG thrived on the conflict, escalating run of the mill flamebait into all out nuclear war.

For the vast majority of users on BGG I think this conflict doesn't really register. The vocal minority of the ATers has blown this way out of proportion.

Awesome, a bastion of all that is Ameritrash. I don't personally enjoy that style of play; but I applaud the effort at giving AT games a fair shake.

Is there any hope that y'all will still try to re-post content found here on BGG? I ask because it seems that new users looking for more AT games would appreciate it; even if there are certain veterans who would not.

I realize there were people like generalpf who were of the "We don't like your kind around here" mindset. But I always felt like the majority of the comments, such as the "Yawn..." one above, were more along the lines of "Don't you have anything *new* to say?"

As we type away, I'm sure that the umpteenth "games the girlfriend will like" list is being composed by someone in BGG-land. And no one will respond with a "YAWN" comment. Or ask why we need yet another list about games the girlfriend will like.

A good column, Ken, and the linked Geeklist is excellent. I've always thought that Matt Thrower's "Seven Reasons I Hate Eurogames" was the Ur-Ameritrash document, but your list seems to deserve that honor.

"Let's not pretend that this didn't go both ways. Many AT-fans couldn't talk about any game without putting down Caylus, Puerto Rico or Euros in general. It really seems that several in the fledgling AT community on BGG thrived on the conflict, escalating run of the mill flamebait into all out nuclear war."

Yeah, but did that happen on the Caylus and Puerto Rico areas? I don't believe so -- it happened in the Ameritrash areas. However, the opposite happened all the time -- people would come crap on the Ameritrashes in the Ameritrash areas. (The naked ratfucker comes immediately to mind.) Which in my opinion is all the difference in the world.

(NOTE: This is not someone who has posted here before. I just haven't taken the time to figure out how to make a blogger account. I can be... special... that way sometimes.)

"As we type away, I'm sure that the umpteenth "games the girlfriend will like" list is being composed by someone in BGG-land. And no one will respond with a "YAWN" comment. Or ask why we need yet another list about games the girlfriend will like."

Are you *kidding*?

All of those lists go the same way:

1. Someone posts a link to the original list, which covers the subject better.2. Someone else says they find such a list offensive, because women are just like men, and they shouldn't need special games to help them along.3. Endless argument ensues.

This "people *only* pick on us" attitude is starting to get a bit silly.

1. Someone posts a link to the original list, which covers the subject better.2. Someone else says they find such a list offensive, because women are just like men, and they shouldn't need special games to help them along.3. Endless argument ensues."""

This is true. There are also guys who come down on Caylus like a tonne of bricks every time it is mentioned.

For every game, genre and idea, there is someone who will be a jerk about it on the Geek. The Ameritrash content was simply more visible recently, so it was piled on more.

But really, have you seen some of the pile ons recently?

1. Some poor new user adds a list of what he thinks is a new idea... and gets a half dozen posts linking to the earlier content and berating the poor guy for not using search.

2. Some poor non-native English speaker says *anything* and gets a pile-driver from the language police.

3. Someone tries to post something they think is innovative (such as when I tried to come up with an objective, scientific method for determining the amount of "luck" that a game contains) and they get shouted down with "READ A BOOK ON GAME THEORY", which of course is funny as heck because I had Luce and Raiffa's [i]Games and Decisions[/i] and Isaacs' [i]Differential Games[/i] sitting on my desk at the time because I write software that uses game theory for a freaking living...

Let's face it, new user or old, native language speaker or not, new content or rehashes... it doesn't matter. There is a user who will come down on it.

And the interesting thing? If you become successful here, well, "build it, and they will come" so to speak.

I just wanted to add my belated congrats to the folks who started this blog. Its focus makes it a great complement to BGG and it will definitely be a part of my daily webcrawl.

@Dennis: touche. I see that happen sometimes, yes. I suppose we could both be right. Just don't want to start some pointless bickering here; I've no stake in this "war" as I just like games, no matter what label they're given. I should've just kept my mouth shut and leave it up to those who really want to scrap over this.

Now my question--where is the outcry for when those things you mention happen? Where are the yardstick slaps to the palms, the public canings, the drawing and quartering?

That sort of behavior drives away FAR, FAR more users than anything Michael will EVER say. Worse, it drives away *new* users who, when confronted with such behavior, are naturally not entrenched in the community yet and just...leave.

Maybe they were the one that would provide some invaluable player aid way down the line. Maybe they would be the person to write a sterling game review that would generate a few sales for some game company. But...not to be. "Hey, NOOB, there's already been a list on this topic. Go away."

In fact, what you're saying makes the rationale behind the "war" as it were all the more evident. Before, when users would do engage in the type of behavior you're talking about, the "victim" would slink away, and that was that.

But hey...what was it Chong Li said in Bloodsport? "Brick...not hit back."

Ameritrashers with their sense of drama and their naturally more confronational personalities took that sort of bullying and blew it right back up in their face.

Of course, the ultimate reward in all of this? One of the AT crowd gets banned. What does THAT tell you?

But hey, I hear there's a great thread celebrating Michael's banning in a devious, underhanded way by asking for contributions based on a newfound love for the site. Gee, why is that?

"""Ameritrashers with their sense of drama and their naturally more confronational personalities took that sort of bullying and blew it right back up in their face."""

Excellent point. And frankly, a bit of push back would be a good thing for the community, but I think it is pretty clear that Michael and Scott let it get personal. Not in the "flame-war" sense, but in the "never surrender" sense.

Throwing a specific request back at the requester tends to anger *people in general*. When that person holds the strings to the accounts, well, bad things happen.

I personally don't know if the banning was a good thing or not. If Michael was truly pushing some of the other heavy contributors from the site (and it has been indicated that this was the case) then I might have made the same decision.

If those people were simply using Michael as a convenient excuse, well, that is very disappointing.

Personally, I found Michael to be both insightful *and* abrasive as sand paper. Like most such users I just added him to my mental "ignore" list unless something with a lot of thumbs popped up.

I wish you luck here. You may have noticed that I personally own and rate Ameritrash games highly, so if you can come up with some sticky content (say, some web based Ameritrashy games to act like Tigris & Euphrates does on the geek) I'll be lined up for the long haul. (I already have the RSS subscribed...)

Barnes: getting banned sucks, and I'm disappointed by how many BGGers are ok with it...they're only making your point for you...but at least here, you can say what you want...

My only beef (and it's very pet-peevey)...I hate the word "Ameritrash." Not the games, or the players, but the word itself. It's kinda like "muggles," but doesn't make my skin crawl quite as much.

...on another note, I'm assuming that you fellas are keeping up with the Passive Aggresssive Olympics going on at BGG right now. EXACTLY what ole Barnsie was talking about..."civil" and "sophisticated" comments that are just thinly veiled insults. If you're going to tell someone to "fuck off," do it explicitly and to their face. "wellll, if CERTAIN PEOPLE would be more INTELLECTUAL like me and blah blah...I know most AMERICANS can't handle this level of sophistication...but...blibbertyblabertyblah" OH MY GOD MAKE IT STOP BEFORE I STAB MYSELF IN THE FACE.

I am glad that it is clear this was in the works long before the "Barnes Affair" took place.

For me the reason this is better here and not on the Geek is because all of the attack and politics that place have build up are missing. We can talk about the games we like toplay and why without it becomming a flame war.

Why a blog site and not a domain/webserver of our own... simple answer is that this method has a much faster turn around time, is easier to manage, cost us nothing and serves 99% of what we were looking for. A place to talk about things.

We are not about trying to be a site for AT downloads or gain aids. BGG does a better job at that than any other site and so there is no need. All wee need is a space to post and archice our blogs and this will work out just fine.

I'm right there with you malloc... I look forward to contributing to this blog, (which will probably happen after I turn in my last brief at school on the 22nd) but I am going to continue to post on BGG. Everything that has happened in the last few days just makes me that much more determined to voice my opinion.

"I will continue to post and piss off the eurosnoots at bgg. Its my favorite pastime."

and

"I'm right there with you malloc... I look forward to contributing to this blog, (which will probably happen after I turn in my last brief at school on the 22nd) but I am going to continue to post on BGG. Everything that has happened in the last few days just makes me that much more determined to voice my opinion."

and

"OK, so where am I supposed to hang out if I want humor and Eurogames? Now who's going to bother writing interesting and sarcastic criticism of Eurogames?"

I hope this isn't going to turn into some perversion like the Slashdot trolling groups who set up websites specifically with the purpose of creating shell accounts, exploit sharing and all that other crap. An alternate site that gives voice to the Ameritrash gaming is noble. A site that dedicates itself to trolling the users another site... that's just pathetic.

Heh, there's already yet another attempt underway to repurpose the term "Ameritrash". This time the leading candidate appears to be "AmeriKA" - with the "KA" standing for an edgy "Kick Ass". I'm a little weepy that no one has mentioned my favorite alternative of all time - "Amerigold". It just makes you want to run outside and hug people.

All I'll add to the above is that while this place was in discussion for some time, and while Matt set it up a while ago, the rest of us procrastinating bastards were too lazy to get off our asses and sign up. Barnes' banning was the 'spark' that finally fired us up enough to do it. So the timing wasn't 100% coincidental, and if it hadn't have happened it probably would have been another month before one of us got started posting on this thing.

Hmm, suddenly I started feeling a bit defferently about the ban... there're these things called smileys, and if at the time of writing this you meant "Godeke, I'm teasing you buddy..." then the smiley was really missing. I am in the 'avoid threads that do not sound interesting', so I missed most of the ameritrash talk, but if this was a tone of discussion there I can very well see why people felt lines were crossed.

Bazik if you thought Barnes was serious with the comment then I'm afraid your just not in tune with our mojo. Personally I hardly ever use smilies when I'm making quips and remarks. They are simply enforcing what should be obvious, and I find them kind of offensive in a cheesy sort of way. It's like you don't trust the reader enough to let them read between the lines themselves. They also often kill the punchline. Death to smilies!

if I understand the bannig issue, the reply "Bazik if you thought Barnes was serious with the comment then I'm afraid your just not in tune with our mojo." is exactly the point - admins on bgg felt that it is not my problem if I (or readers that actually read the remarks) are in tune with your mojo. it is the speaker's problem the reader needs to be in tune with your mojo not to be offended.

not saying I agree or disagree, just saying I think I understand better where the ban came from.

If you're looking into website hosting, after a fair amount of research I decided on:-http://www.ixwebhosting.com/templates/ix/v2/affiliate/clickthru.cgi?id=adrianboltDo you think the guy on the right is an Ameritrasher?